Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 106 2020 SLD 106 2020 PLD 54
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 227635 of 2018, decision Dated:11-10-2019. Hearing Dated: 02-10-2019.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mrs. Hina Jillani, Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota and Saqib Jillani
Respondent(s) by: Ali Raza, Ali Sibtain Fazli, Hasham Ahmad Khan, Abad ur Rehman, Omer Tariq, Nabil Ahmad and Ms. Sofia No.3.

MEERA SHAFIVSOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Law: Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010

Section: 2(a),2(f),2(g),2(h),4(4),8,8(1),9,10(2)

(a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010) [as amended by the Punjab Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012 (III of 2013)] --- ----Ss. 2(a), 2(f), 2(g), 2(h), 4(4), 8 & 10(2)---Harassment at workplace---Self-employed independent contractor---No employment relationship---'Accused'---Meaning and scope---Cumulative reading of the Punjab Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ('the Act') showed that the law applied to harassment at a workplace in respect of an employee of an organization who could, upon an application of harassment, bring a complaint before the Ombudsperson against that employer or any of the persons employed in that organization---Purpose of the law had been circumscribed in respect of harassment of women who were employees either regular or contractual in an organization---Act in question did not speak to every woman but only to a woman employee who happened to be harassed at a workplace---In the present case, the petitioner-complainant, in terms of the agreement in question agreed to perform at a major concert as an artist---Throughout the agreement the petitioner had been referred to as an artist and a fee was also agreed between the parties which was the artist's fee---For all intents therefore the agreement was for services to be provided by the petitioner as the artist and was to last for a show and the agreement had admittedly terminated as soon as the show ended---Petitioner was a self-employed independent contractor who was not an integral part of the organization with whom she signed the agreement and was engaged for the purpose of completing a specific task---Petitioner was not at any time during her performance at the show under the control and supervision of the organization as an employee---Labelling the petitioner as an employee in such circumstances would be mockery of the law---Petitioner was neither a regular nor a contractual employee of the organization with whom she signed the agreement and on this basis could not have sought to assert her right to maintain the complaint---Question whether the petitioner was an employee of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492